NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
January 11, 2012
Crack of light
What do they mean by, "We need another Reagan"?This is the plaintive cry I have heard from American "Tea Party" types whose casual acquaintance I have made. Even they find the Republican presidential race embarrassing, as one after another alternative to Mitt Romney keels, above dissolved feet of clay. This column couldn't wait for the results from New Hampshire last night, but there was no need. Unless Romney somehow lost it, there was no news. The significant battle is in South Carolina, after which the field definitively narrows. So where is "another Reagan"? I think the meaning of this plaintive conservative cry, is that they need another politician who can, with some dignity in the face of the inevitable liberal media onslaught, articulate basic "Tea Party" notions to some interesting portion of the electorate that is not Tea Party. (No need to explain to the tea-drinkers themselves.) Having resolved that Romney is a robot, Paul a godless ideologue, Huntsman a diplomat, and Perry can't tie his own shoelaces, they are left in the unusual position (especially for the Evangelicals), of choosing between two Roman Catholics. Or maybe one, since it turns out that Newt Gingrich didn't, actually, achieve a personal transformation in his time away from power, and has come across as the same old, deeply flawed guy, with a mouth on him too much like mine. That leaves Santorum, who can at least articulate, knows what he is articulating, and can smile, against Obama, "who can articulate lies." (I put that in quotes, because it is not a statement of fact, necessarily, but of conservative belief. Needless to say, I share it.) The conventional view, from inside such media centres as New York and Washington, is that Romney must win for the good of the Republican party, because he is the "moderate" who can appeal to "independents." His very lack of deep conviction on anything at all - even his Mormonism, which he shrugs off - makes him the most reliable politician. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and Romney swings left or right, as required. Indeed, "they" - the seaboard Republican managerial class - take the need for this kind of "moderation" to be so self-evident, that disagreement must expose some mental deficiency. I disagree. In my (admittedly somewhat jaded) view of democracy, independents aren't "moderates." The great majority of them ignore political questions. Lacking their own political ideas, they are highly suggestible. Obama, an unusually radical left-liberal Democrat, won last time, because he was suggestive. He suggested hope and change. This sounded good to independents. Reagan won over the independents by articulating, in terms almost anyone could understand, concepts like "the government that can give you everything you want can take everything you have away." He was articulating genuine convictions that made some sense. He came across as authentic, thanks as much to his acting skills as to his beliefs; but he was authentic. The likelihood is that, by de-animating the Republican "base," Romney will throw the election. He can't match Obama in political posturing, and he can't match any Republican opponent in conviction. He wins only if the "independents" decide Obama must go. He cannot win on his own account. The conventionals don't grasp this, because they live in places like New York and Washington. And because, deeper than their affiliation to party, is their affiliation to political machines. They live and die by polls which show only what people think of what has been offered; which cannot show what people will think of something not yet offered. It follows that the Republicans might well have a better chance with, say, Santorum, than with Romney. This is because a politician like Santorum, who can unquestionably animate that Red State "base," can also articulate Red State ideas - especially well into such swing states as his native Pennsylvania, or Ohio, where he speaks out of a life experience that (unlike Obama's) is "real world." There is nothing effete about him, and the contrast with an opponent who is truly effete, could be quite telling. Santorum can also touch the God Thing, in the American psyche. It is there to a degree greater than in any other western country, and it crosses party lines. Here, again, the contrast could be telling. But to have a chance of displacing first Romney, then Obama, conservative Republicans must not only swing decisively behind Santorum, but do it fast. If he can't take South Carolina, I'd guess the game is up. They can't afford to let any nominee be presented as the "not-Romney" tea bag. He'd need the same luxury Obama had at the last election: enough time to build a "presidential" impression, after his anointment. He'd need party infighting to be behind him. I'm predicting nothing here; only saying that, from a conservative view, I can't see light through any other crack. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top